[WP1] [Party1] For discussion - criteria to select preferred mechanisms

Mathieu Weill mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Sun Mar 15 13:17:24 UTC 2015

Thanks Jordan for setting up this discussion. It is one we need to carry 
to the whole group I believe, considering the upcoming meeting in 
Istanbul. I will try to circulate a consolidated draft before our call 
on Tuesday.

See some comments inline :

Le 14/03/2015 05:08, Jordan Carter a écrit :
> *I think it would be valuable to work out some criteria to help 
> establish our preferred mechanism - both in terms of the 
> process/structure divide and within those too.*
We should bear in mind that the question will be about comparing 
options, so our questions will be of the kind "which option would be 
> Here are some that come to mind - above and beyond the stress-tests, 
> which will help, and above and beyond the matters set out in our 
> definition and scope document:
>   * Legal effectiveness - how operable or entrenched would the
>     community's new powers be? [We can't choose a mechanism that isn't
>     effective, in my opinion.]
I support the idea, but would welcome some details of how we would rate 
a specific option to be more effective than the other ?
>   * Decisionmaking quality - what impact will the mechanism's
>     construction have on quality of decisionmaking? [This could be
>     quite subjective but does need to be considered.]
I believe we can avoid most of the subjectivity by relying on the 
qualities of accountability mechanisms : checks and balances and 
independence seem quite relevant here. There might also be an aspect of 
skillsets of decision makers ?
>   * Simplicity of design - what is the level of simplicity to
>     implement and to explain, internally and externally? [We have a
>     consensus that simpler is preferable, so far as I can tell.]
>   * Simplicity of operation - what is the level of attention and
>     resource required from the community to make the mechanism work?
Nice and useful distinction around the expected simplicity of our 
>   * Accountability - how is the mechanism held accountable to the
>     stakeholders whose power it is designed to enforce over ICANN?
> I am sure there are more, and welcome your additions to the list and 
> discussion of the whole subject.
> I'd like to build off that conversation by starting a table that sets 
> out some of the aspects of each model based on these criteria and the 
> others that come up, so as to pull all the key information into one 
> place for debate in Istanbul. I'll start working on that tomorrow.
> Looking forward to your thoughts!
> best
> Jordan
> -- 
> Jordan Carter
> Chief Executive
> *InternetNZ*
> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
> jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> Skype: jordancarter
> /A better world through a better Internet /
> _______________________________________________
> WP1 mailing list
> WP1 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1

Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Twitter : @mathieuweill

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20150315/8897e8b0/attachment.html>

More information about the WP1 mailing list